Whether they have “reasons” or not doesn’t mean they are or are not villains. However, having “reasons” and “justifications” makes a villain more relate-able, more understandable, and often more tragic. In some cases, it also makes them more terrifying.

Consider the Cultists. They are evil for the sake of being evil. Yet there aren’t any that could be considered particularly memorable (except maybe as comic relief), not even the leader guy. Iwatani makes a much greater impression.

Of course, this isn’t always necessary, sometimes other things can carry it through, but it usually adds to it. And also it is very much not necessary to actually justify their “reasons” to the audience. Kefka of FF6 is a great villain, and his motivations (nihilism, wanting to stave off boredom, lust for power) are explored, but his actions to achieve those are not exactly “sane” or reasonable to most people. On the other hand FF5’s Exdeath is hardly memorable at all (in fact I had to look it up to make sure I got the name right)…

Exdeath wasn’t unmemorable because his motivations were unclear or because his actions weren’t explained. He was unmemorable because he didn’t appear until halfway through the game, and had no personality, and then you killed him a few hours later. But he came back to life later because he was SECRETLY A TREEEEEEE and gave you a splinter during the fight.

He would have probably been okay if he’d had, like, a *single conversation* with one of his henchmen that consisted of anything other than “Henchman, go defeat the Warriors of Light!” or “Henchman, as punishment for your failure, wander for eternity in the X-Zone! Where’s my next henchman? Go defeat the Warriors of Light!”

The fact that this chapter is shown to the reader instead of the savage champions just showing up in a fight later and calling themselves the savage champions is what makes me pay a little more attention to them. They’re characters instead of obstacles.

Yeah, this. Kefka had a lot of character establishing moments, and a lot of moments where he interacted with several protagonists individually, several antagonists individually, several secondary characters…

He had lots of screen time, and he did lots of different things during that screen time.

Sure, but the point, to me anyway, is that establishing motive, developing it and their reasoning, etc. is one of the better ways to establish character. Someone shows up and says: “I want to blow up the world!” Yeah, they’re a villain, but not a well written one. On the other hand, if some of the reason why they want to blow up the world is shown, it gives screen time, but also makes their character more understandable, even if their reasoning is ultimately flawed/wrong/psychotic or whatever.

Well developed motivations, even without screen time, can also give insight into a character that’s introduced later, so long as the connections can be made by the audience. If Magda was just as generic as the other three Savasi Tectonicians, she’d be far less interesting and eye-catching… including in-universe, and part of that “interest” is generated from connections set up before the character was introduced as such.

Basically, it’s the difference of depth. Even a character that gets a lot of screen time, if they aren’t given depth/developed, they end up being unmemorable characters anyway (at the very least, by comparison of other characters).

Personal gain at the expense of institutional integrity, even in noble ways and toward noble ends, is one of those things that sounds like a great idea until it starts to scale up. If, for example, the building had been on fire, and he’d opportunistically appropriated the keys in an explicit rescue effort, that would be different.

It all depends on your point of view. From Harky and his allies’ perspective, they’re the good guys and Byron is the most evil/dangerous person around. From the Gastonian leadership perspective, humans (meaning humans loyal to Gastonia) are the good guys. To the adventurers and probably to the readers, the adventurers are the good guys.

I’m guessing that they’re rightfully going to be heroes in their own right, the same way the Peace-Makers/Adventurer’s Guild are heroes. Goblaurence looking at slaves as tools and being willing to blow up a couple of Avians may be red flags, but he’s not needlessly cruel, while Frigg’s pretty rough too.

Iver is like a smarter, more charismatic version of Don Gobligno. Like the Don, Iver is kinda vain, greedy and power hungry but is also much more measured and controlled in his approach. However just as the Don’s “trolling” attempt failed so it seems Iver’s attempt at flattery will also fail to impress Harky or at least won’t have the full desired effect.

I’m not even sure that it’s flat-out flattery. Iver seems really savvy. Yeah, he cherry-picked those four because their chosen deity to worship coincides with Harky’s, but that’s just a smart decision. He picked people he thought his fellow leader(s) would approve of – and he was right.

No way his choice of Magda was an accident. She’s not only the niece of one of the mystics he killed, but she’s decidedly NOT a yes-woman? Hell, I’d bet those are the reasons he chose her. If the other three candidates had a reason to be fleshed out more, I’d expect them to have some large differences in personality amongst each other, too.

The picture she makes when talking about her uncle is that of Cliff Rockside, who’s confirmed dead. Between that and both Gravedust and Iver independently saying “the other mystics are all dead”, I’m assuming Magda’s uncle is pretty dead.

The last couple of days I’ve noticed that the comic has been updating pretty late — I think this page went up at 3 AM for me instead of the usual ten minutes or so after midnight. Is the system working okay, or did the holidays get to you guys?

Okay, what exactly is sword girl laughing at? I would say it is the juggling but she seems to be facing away from the juggler and towards Magda. Is it something Magda or Gondolessa said or is the mere image of Cliff Rockside somehow humorous to her?

Guilded Age does not claim ownership of any of the corporate branding that appears in this comic, nor does it claim any affiliation, partnership, or endorsement of any kind. They are used strictly as an artistic choice for the set dressing of the comic.